GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/06/29/further-proof-that-gay-organizations-serve-as-gay-arm-of-left/trackback/

  1. Mind-reading alert!
    They want to join into every happening in which other left-wing and left-leaning institutions (and individuals) participate.
    I won’t try to dissuade you from your view of gay rights’ groups and their alliance with other liberal causes, but, on the merits of this one, I think there is a case to be made. Isn’t it altogether possible that legal discrimination (as “the Left” sees AZ’s law) would be a natural overlap with gay rights orgs? That a law allowing the state to treat citizens differently based on perceived natural origin would resonate with gay people, given the legal discrimination they face every day, in various degrees across jurisdictions? And that such resonance could and in many cases would lead to an standing together (boycotts, lawsuits, whatever the action is)?
    I understand that you view AZ’s law differently. But given how some see the law, it’s entirely consistent for orgs based on fighting discrimination to oppose AZ’s law also.

    Comment by torrentprime — June 29, 2010 @ 3:41 pm - June 29, 2010

  2. torent, have you read the law?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 29, 2010 @ 4:15 pm - June 29, 2010

  3. but Dan, back on 4/28 these comments came out from a few Key Republicans:

    After staying quiet following Arizona’s passage of a controversial new immigration law, a number of national Republican voices have begun to criticize it as heavy-handed.

    While none of the GOP critics who are speaking out go as far as liberal critics who have called the bill “racist,” they do believe the bill is not the correct approach and hope it prompts the federal government to step in.

    Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio said in a statement Tuesday that he fears the law puts the Arizona’s police force in an “incredibly difficult position.”

    “It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens,” Rubio said. “Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile.”

    Rubio criticism was quickly followed up by a fellow Floridian, former Gov. Jeb Bush. In an interview with POLITICO, Bush said the law is not “the proper approach.”

    “I think it creates unintended consequences,” he said. “It’s difficult for me to imagine how you’re going to enforce this law. It places a significant burden on local law enforcement and you have civil liberties issues that are significant as well.”

    Much of the criticism is coming from associates of former President George W. Bush.

    “I wished they hadn’t passed it,” Bush strategist Karl Rove told a crowd of 500 at a senior community center in Florida. “I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill….At the end of the day,” he said, “I think there are better tools.”

    Conservative Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, a former Bush speechwriter, called the law “dreadful” on Wednesday in his piece for the Post. “This law creates a suspect class, based in part on ethnicity, considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent,” Gerson wrote. “It makes it harder for illegal immigrants to live without scrutiny — but it also makes it harder for some American citizens to live without suspicion and humiliation.”

    “Americans are not accustomed to the command ‘Your papers, please,’ however politely delivered,” he continued. “The distinctly American response to such a request would be ‘Go to hell,’ and then ‘See you in court.’”

    Former Bush press secretary Dana Perino questioned the law in a post earlier this week in POLITICO’s Arena forum. “I understand that Arizonans are frustrated with the level of illegal immigration,” she wrote, “ and at the same time I can’t imagine that we’re going to allow police to stop people on the streets and demand their papers. Stronger enforcement is key, but this seems a bridge too far.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36469.html#ixzz0sH8tn2UP

    Comment by rusty — June 29, 2010 @ 4:23 pm - June 29, 2010

  4. Boycotting Arizona is not a “leftist” cause–for conservatives who want to preserve the right of personal privacy, it is essential to boycott the “show your papers” legislation enacted there. Also, many conservatives, such as Marco Rubio, support guest worker passes as the way to immigration reform. So don’t make this a leftist thing.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — June 29, 2010 @ 4:39 pm - June 29, 2010

  5. Ash, torrent-

    Have you READ THE LAW?

    Comment by GayPatriot — June 29, 2010 @ 5:09 pm - June 29, 2010

  6. I bet neither one of them has read the law. If they did, then they need to sue their teachers for not teaching basic English comprehension.

    But, what I came to ask: Did LCR join the boycott? It’s not mentioned in the article, one way or the other.

    It’s clear that the Gay Left groups haven’t read the law. I mean, take:

    S.B. 1070 essentially declares an entire class of people to be inherently criminal on the basis of their race and appearance. The consequences of S.B. 1070 are grave and troubling: the inevitability of racial profiling and infringement of civil liberties; the strong probability of violence and harassment against individuals and their families…

    What absurd misrepresentations. Goebbel’s Big Lie technique at work. But that, sadly, is what today’s Left movement is all about.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 29, 2010 @ 5:26 pm - June 29, 2010

  7. Boycotting Arizona will mainly hurt the very people these compassionate bleeding-hearts claim they want to help.

    But wait…that’s how it always works out.

    They don’t care. It’s all about their own feelings and intentions, as per usual. They can’t even handle a rational discussion about the issue at hand. And they certainly can’t be bothered to actually read the law in question.

    If these people really are our intellectual betters, then God help us all.

    Comment by Lori Heine — June 29, 2010 @ 5:33 pm - June 29, 2010

  8. Yes, I read the law. The other day, I was pulled over for turning into the far lane on a left turn. And I’m not even black.

    I also live near Fremont, NE which passed a law similar to AZ. I hate that Nebraska, which usually stands for common sense conservatism, has been brought into this.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — June 29, 2010 @ 6:37 pm - June 29, 2010

  9. Yes, I read the law.

    Then the follow-up applies: Sue your teachers for having gypped you out of basic English comprehension. Because this (of yours) was a pathetic misrepresentation:

    the “show your papers” legislation enacted there

    Immigrants have always had to have some proof of their immigration status. In all 50 states. AZ hasn’t changed that; nothing to boycott there. Citizens have always been required to show relevant papers in relevant contexts – like when a traffic cop asks to see your driver’s license – and only then. In all 50 states. AZ hasn’t changed that; nothing to boycott there, either.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 29, 2010 @ 6:57 pm - June 29, 2010

  10. Text of the law is here:

    http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-1/

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 29, 2010 @ 7:08 pm - June 29, 2010

  11. Also a short summary here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/04/arizona-illegal-immigration-law-jan-brewer.html

    Presented with my comments:

    Makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally by specifically requiring immigrants to have proof of their immigration status… [ed: this was already a federal crime, thus a crime in all 50 States]

    Requires police officers to “make a reasonable attempt” to determine the immigration status of a person if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that he or she is an illegal immigrant. [ed. "reasonable attempt" and "reasonable suspicion" are not weasel words, they have been defined by case law.]
    Race, color or national origin may not be the only things considered in implementation… [ed: That part of the summary is out of date. AZ amended the law on April 30 so that race, color and national origin may not be considered AT ALL in deciding "reasonable suspicion"]

    Allow[s] lawsuits against local or state government agencies that have policies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws. Would impose daily civil fines of $1,000-$5,000. There is pending follow-up legislation to halve the minimum to $500. [ed: This is just requiring AZ State and local officials to enforce existing AZ State and local law. The new law further makes clear, should there be any doubt, that they should do so only to the extent permitted by the AZ and US constitutions.]

    Targets hiring of illegal immigrants as day laborers by prohibiting people from stopping a vehicle on a road to offer employment and by prohibiting a person from getting into a stopped vehicle on a street to be hired for work if it impedes traffic. [ed: Fair enough!]

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 29, 2010 @ 7:16 pm - June 29, 2010

  12. ILC, nice job but believe me, it’s like casting pearls before swine.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — June 29, 2010 @ 7:29 pm - June 29, 2010

  13. Peter, thanks, and I know; I do it for the lurkers / fence-sitters who might enjoy it, or who could use the information.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 29, 2010 @ 7:45 pm - June 29, 2010

  14. Huh. Something else I part ways with Gay Inc. on. No surprise there.

    Go Brewer!

    Comment by John — June 29, 2010 @ 8:12 pm - June 29, 2010

  15. Here’s a lesson in reading comprehension for you: What this law means is that a cop can see a Hispanic and make something up like, “I didn’t see him use his blinker to change lanes.” Then, on this false, but impossible to disprove, pretext, he can pull the guy over and ask for his papers.

    Making up a “probable cause” is a violation of our 4th amendment rights:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Please look up any of the big words in the above quote.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — June 29, 2010 @ 10:48 pm - June 29, 2010

  16. Then, on this false, but impossible to disprove, pretext, he can pull the guy over and ask for his papers.

    And do you know what the guy can show him?

    A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

    1. A valid Arizona driver license.
    2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
    3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
    4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

    And, since you’re supposed to carry your driver’s license at all times when driving, this should not be a problem.

    Furthermore, perhaps you should become acquainted with 8 U.S.C 1304, subsection (e) (emphasis mine).

    Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties

    Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

    So let’s revisit your whine from above.

    Boycotting Arizona is not a “leftist” cause–for conservatives who want to preserve the right of personal privacy, it is essential to boycott the “show your papers” legislation enacted there.

    Well, since you’re boycotting any place that has “show your papers” legislation, you can just get the hell out of the United States, then, because it’s written into Federal law.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 30, 2010 @ 12:33 am - June 30, 2010

  17. Hey rusty, I dare you to go enter any country but USA illegally.

    Comment by The Wasp — June 30, 2010 @ 1:03 am - June 30, 2010

  18. What this law means is that a cop can see a Hispanic and make something up like, “I didn’t see him use his blinker to change lanes.” Then, on this false, but impossible to disprove, pretext, he can pull the guy over and ask for his papers.

    Ash, that is one of the stupider things I’ve ever read on this blog.

    First, cops can already do that – it is called ASKING FOR THE DRIVER’S DRIVER’S LICENSE. You do know what a driver’s license is – and that it is required by law in 50 states – and that it has been found constitutional already. Right?

    Second, how could the cop reliably tell in advance and from a separate car or post, and most likely from behind, that it is a Hispanic person? Because many Hispanics are lily-white, you know. A few here and there are even blond. Likewise, many brown-skinned and/or black-haired people are in no way Hispanic. Well, from the ignorance and stupidity of your comments, you probably don’t know those things. But they are so.

    Laws can always be abused by those of ill will. The cop could abuse the mandatory-license requirement with a white, yellow, red, black or purple person. The point is that race has nothing to do with the AZ law, except in your fevered and stupid imagination. The AZ law does not worsen the existing potential for race-based abuse. In fact it explicitly forbids the use of racial profiling (as I explained earlier). The AZ law lessens the potential for abuse of a different kind; abuses in which illegal aliens (of any alleged race or national origin) are otherwise winked at.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 30, 2010 @ 3:12 am - June 30, 2010

  19. (continued) So, if the cop did as you suggest, he would be doing something against the AZ law itself. The law forbids him to racially profile (to the extent, again, that it could even be practical). And the law forbids him to pull people over indiscriminately. It requires him, in effect, to have good reason to pull the person over AND THEN to develop a suspicion that is “reasonable” under a significant body of existing case law, before anything can legally be done about the illegal alien’s illegal status.

    Now you want to posit rogue cops, unconstitutionally violating people’s rights. Fine. But do grasp the stupidity of it. We can posit illegal/rogue behavior for *any government official* in the enforcement of *any law*. There is nothing different, special or untoward (in that regard) about the AZ law. Shall we talk about rogue IRS agents who unfairly rape citizens and legal aliens of their livelihoods? Oh wait, we know from other threads that you approve of that rape, when you imagine it’s being done on your behalf.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 30, 2010 @ 3:38 am - June 30, 2010

  20. I always love the ‘could do something defense.’

    The IRS ‘could be used’ to punish political enemies.

    The cop ‘could abuse the law’ by planting coke in your car when he searches it.

    Ash ‘could have a clue’ by being right on something for once, but it’s more likely that a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    They say ‘corner cases make bad law’. What Ash wants is for corner cases to allow for no laws.

    Again, Ash, sue your skool for failing to teach you comprehension.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 30, 2010 @ 7:02 am - June 30, 2010

  21. Do you remember the “beer summit?” Blacks know what this law is really saying.

    Yes, it’s legal for a cop to ask for your driver’s license, but a license is not identity papers. A cop can also say he saw you step out of the crosswalk and stop you for purported jaywalking. You don’t need a license to walk, but apparently you need to have your ID papers. For conservatives who claim to want to protect the Constitution, you seem indifferent to one of the most egregious attacks on our basic rights in recent memory.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — June 30, 2010 @ 8:38 am - June 30, 2010

  22. You mean when the officer asked for ID, and the man in question had a fit and refused to cooperate culminating in assulting a police officer? Then when the President, having no knowlege by his own admission, stereotypically blamed the police officer, then had to backpedal when the facts became known?

    Why, yes, I do remember that incident. Apparently that makes one of us.

    Poor Ash, to live in a world where every illegal immigrant is innocent, and every cop is corrupt.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 30, 2010 @ 9:10 am - June 30, 2010

  23. sorry, disorderly conduct, not assaulting an officer.

    Tell you what, Ash. If someone is breaking into your front door, how about your neighbors do nothing and you come home to an empty house?

    Better still. how about they tazer you for not showing ID?

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 30, 2010 @ 9:18 am - June 30, 2010

  24. “I think it creates unintended consequences,” he said. “It’s difficult for me to imagine how you’re going to enforce this law. It places a significant burden on local law enforcement and you have civil liberties issues that are significant as well.” Former Gov. Jeb Bush

    Comment by rusty — June 30, 2010 @ 9:42 am - June 30, 2010

  25. What Ash wants is for corner cases to allow for no laws.

    Exactly. His argument there is stupid because it has no unique or particular application to the AZ law; it implies that we should abolish every law. Advocating the smallest government possible does not mean I advocate no government; police and the rule of law are required to protect life, liberty and property.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 30, 2010 @ 9:55 am - June 30, 2010

  26. rusty – Jeb Bush’s comments are dated April 27, before the amended law on April 30. In other words: -He hadn’t read the law.- (At least not as it was finally passed.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 30, 2010 @ 11:22 am - June 30, 2010

  27. Blacks know what this law is really saying.

    “Blacks know”?

    You are saying that every single person with black skin in this country thinks, believes, and acts exactly how you think they do?

    I mean, torrentprime’s babbling belief that all people of a certain ethnic group are illegal immigrants from a specific country was racist enough, but this one really takes the cake.

    Yes, it’s legal for a cop to ask for your driver’s license, but a license is not identity papers.

    Again, the quote from Arizona law, as already provided above.

    A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

    1. A valid Arizona driver license.
    2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

    3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
    4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

    And finally:

    You don’t need a license to walk, but apparently you need to have your ID papers.

    Yes you do; if you are a legal immigrant, you must, quote, “at all times carry with (you) and have in (your) personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to you”, as spelled out specifically under Federal law, 8 U.S.C 1304, subsection (e).

    So frankly, Ashpenaz, you’re lying. You have no idea what you’re talking about, and you’re just desperately trying to demagogue the issue to protect criminal behavior.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 30, 2010 @ 11:59 am - June 30, 2010

  28. Former Gov. Jeb Bush

    Comment by rusty — June 30, 2010 @ 9:42 am – June 30, 2010

    Jeb Bush is wrong. He’s been wrong on this issue for years.

    Now, since rusty wants to play games, let’s show what the gay and lesbian community that rusty supports and endorses says.

    The supervisors also are expected to pass a resolution condemning audits by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement designed to force local employers to fire undocumented workers.

    Read that? The gay and lesbian community, as represented by gay Supervisor David Campos and endorsed and supported by rusty, opposes ANY enforcement of Federal immigration law, including laws that go after businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 30, 2010 @ 12:04 pm - June 30, 2010

  29. I could have pointed out how Ash’s comments are racist, i.e. there is racism here – coming from him. I let it go by, but I’m glad someone else pointed it out.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 30, 2010 @ 12:13 pm - June 30, 2010

  30. Oh delicious Irony.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 30, 2010 @ 2:11 pm - June 30, 2010

  31. Further data on why gay rights groups may choose to be involved: their members feel the same way.
    More than 6 of 10 LGBT Americans Oppose Arizona’s Immigration Policies.

    Comment by torrentprime — June 30, 2010 @ 2:42 pm - June 30, 2010

  32. torent, have you read the law?
    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 29, 2010 @ 4:15 pm – June 29, 2010

    Sigh. Yes, B Danel Blat, I have read it.

    Comment by torrentprime — June 30, 2010 @ 2:44 pm - June 30, 2010

  33. Paraphrasing River Tamm for Torrent Prime “He reads, but does not comprehend.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 30, 2010 @ 2:58 pm - June 30, 2010

  34. Torrent, once again in your eagerness to repeat left-wing talking points, you miss the points of our post.

    What good does it do for gay groups to support left-wing policies when the minds they’re supposed to be trying to change are on the right?

    And pardon my skepticism, but, based on the comments you’ve made I just don’t believe you’ve read the law.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 30, 2010 @ 3:10 pm - June 30, 2010

  35. Not just that, having reviewed the survey, I’m skeptical of its findings for three reasons (1) online nature of poll; (2) small size of gay simple, (3) clear left-wing bias (he does get the jargon down pat) of Bob Witeck.

    Still, your point is basically a point without a purpose. You do nothing to show that the gay groups lack a left-wing agenda.

    One more thing. Even the skewed poll numbers don’t show that gay people favor a boycott of the Grand Canyon State. Just because they oppose a law doesn’t mean they support the left’s knee-jerk, cry-baby response to the state which enacts it.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 30, 2010 @ 3:16 pm - June 30, 2010

  36. Further data on why gay rights groups may choose to be involved: their members feel the same way.
    More than 6 of 10 LGBT Americans Oppose Arizona’s Immigration Policies.

    And the answer why is obvious from that link and the comments therein; the vast majority of gays and lesbians are ignorant leftist puppets who only repeat what the Obama Party tells them and don’t bother to investigate the facts.

    For example, one of Pam Spaulding’s “commenters” says the following:

    You are not required to carry identification in the United States. If you have it on you, you are required to present it to authorities if asked (a recent change, as well, via SOCTUS ruling), but you are still not required to carry it on you.

    That is a flat-out lie, as I have pointed out twice above. Legal immigrants are required AT ALL TIMES to carry with them or have on their person documentation demonstrating their legal status.

    But again, the lie gets repeated, and the paid shills like Pam Spaulding will not correct it.

    And here’s her latest screed:

    The law is straight up racist.

    That is because Pam Spaulding is completely ignorant of her own racist perceptions. She thinks that brown person = illegal immigrant. She does not comprehend that “illegal immigrant” is a status that is completely independent of skin color. She cannot comprehend that one can be Hispanic without being brown-skinned, or that one can be brown-skinned without being Hispanic, that none of these are automatically synonymous with illegal-immigrant status, and that one can be an illegal immigrant with blond hair and blue eyes.

    Really, this screaming on the part of the left is a projection of their own beliefs and attitudes on race. They make decisions on immigration status, capability, and so forth on skin color, so it is incomprehensible to them that other people do not.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 30, 2010 @ 4:12 pm - June 30, 2010

  37. NDT, exactly.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 30, 2010 @ 5:45 pm - June 30, 2010

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.336 Powered by Wordpress